[metadataLibrarians] pseudo-qualifiers in simple DC

[Riley, Jenn]

Hello all-

I'm looking for opinions on the use of "pseudo-qualifiers" in simple DC
values exposed via OAI. By "pseudo-qualifiers" I mean the inclusion of
strings indicating element refinements or encoding schems (the same
sorts of things the real qualifiers in qualified DC do) within the
actual simple DC element content string.  The purpose of doing this
could be two-fold: 1) making the simple DC metadata more intelligible
for end-users seeing metadata records, and 2) allowing service providers
to use this information intelligently to increase the quality of service
they can provide.

We have relationships with some service providers, so in those cases
we'd know if they'd be able to use metadata formats more robust than DC
if we exposed them, and how they'd want simple DC elements structured to
use these "pseudo-qualifiers." But I'm concerned that tailoring our
simple DC for a few service providers would reduce the utility of the
records for the larger OAI community. Basically I have three questions:

1) What's the general opinion of service providers out there on
including pseudo-qualifiers in DC elements?
2) If these pseudo-qualifiers are used, is it best to put them at the
beginning or end of the element content?
3) If these pseudo-qualifiers are used, what characters are best to use
to delimit the pseudo-qualifier from the rest of the element content?

I imagine the answers to these questions would differ among DC elements.
It seems pretty straightforward that:

<dc:relation>IsPartOf
http://www.dlib.indiana.edu/collections/cushman</dc:relation>

would be OK. Including the IsPartOf pseudo-qualifier wouldn't affect the
end-user experience, and the URL is recognizable easily for service
provider processing. However, qualifying a subject or contributor might
be more problematic:

<dc:subject>[TGM I] Bodies of water</dc:subject> <dc:contributor>Berlin,
Irving [composer]</dc:contributor>

If a service provider were to not do any post-processing of these string
to remove and/or intelligently use these pseudo-qualifiers, they could
interfere with effective combination of metadata from multiple sources.
If the qualifier is at the beginning, a subject or name alphabetical
browse would be ineffective. If the qualifier is at the either end,
collocation of all resources with the same subject or contributor would
be affected. But the utility of the record, especially for the
pseudo-qualified contributor, is greatly increased for the end-user if
this pseudo-qualifier is included.

I'm posting this query elsewhere to try to determine what service
providers' opinions are on this issue, but I'm also very interested in
what metadata librarians' views are. Have you given up on trying to
shove all sorts of things in simple DC just for OAI and rely solely on
exposing more robust metadata formats? Have you instead found good ways
of including extra data in simple DC for end-user benefit? Something
else?

Thanks!

Jenn

Jenn

========================
Jenn Riley
Metadata Librarian
Digital Library Program
Indiana University - Bloomington
Main Library E170
(812) 856-5759
www.dlib.indiana.edu